This entry was posted on February 8, 2018, 13:27 and is filed under Podcast, Skeptics with a K. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

I’m not sure what the section on breast and prostate cancer actually concluded other than the Daily Mail has poor reporting and prostate cancer researchers ask for more money for prostate cancer research neither of which come as any surprise.

I thought the treatment of the data was a little cursory so thanks to the links I’ve had a little, still cursory but more in-depth than the podcast went into, look at the numbers.

A look at the mortality rates (deaths per 100,000 people) shows that in 2014 (the latest year in the data) the rate was 34.6 for BC and 48.1 for PC. This means that, according to the latest data, the rate of deaths from prostate cancer is 39% more than the rate of deaths for breast cancer (using the BC rate as a base). Turning these figures upside down; the rate due to BC is 72% of the rate due to PC (using the PC rate as a base), in other words three men die from PC for every two women who die from BC and this ignores the possibility that some of the deaths due to BC will be men although the chart does say “female” and “male” so I’m not entirely sure how this affects this data.

The above presents a static picture so it’s worth looking at how the rates are (thankfully) improving. I’ve chosen the year of 1993 as roughly when the decline in rates started on both charts and also when the decline roughly fits a straight line.

The average rate of decrease of BC per year is 0.95. The same measure for PC is 0.58. In other words the improvement in in the mortality rate for women is happeng 64% faster than it is for men. I don’t why it is, it could be that BC is easier to treat than PC but it does lend weight to the prostate cancer researcher’s request for more funding.

No one is calling for funding into BC to be reduced but I think there are the beginnings of a good case to argue for more funding into prostate cancer.

I don’t know how research funding is allocated. To me it would make sense if there were an organisation equivalent to NICE who optimise the spending on medicines but would optimise research funding instead. In a case like this where there is a age relation to the mortality data they would, most probably, give a weighting to the age at which people die of diseases. This way we could put money to where it is most needed and has the biggest effect.

Very interesting comments on smoking, unlike Alice! I am one of the populations that becomes addicted to nicotine practically instantly. Every time I have quit in the past I would have a cheeky one thinking it won’t hurt, and every single time I was hooked again. Even now after 3 years I get very strong cravings, but at the same time I am in the period where the smell of cigarettes is revolting to me.

I did try e-cigs, but I found the smell to be awful and even now I think the smell is as bad (to me) as tobacco. I also figured that there maybe some long term effects of glycerol and glycol vapour on ones already badly damaged lungs.

That said, I am so amazed by how many extremely smart people I know that smoke, which makes me feel a little better for doing so for more than 30 years.

I was brought up in the north-west of England and for a few years went to university and then work in the south. I was always getting tripped up by word usage.

Dinner/lunch and tea/dinner was one.
I once directed a taxi driver the wrong way because of using “island” instead of “roundabout”.
I once asked for gravy on my chips much to the mirth of the chippy owner.

The extreme repetition of “women with breast cancer” and “men with prostate cancer” was a little annoying, considering that absolutely anyone can get breast cancer, and not everyone with a prostate is a man. “Breast cancer patients” and “Prostate cancer patients” is how I woulda phrased it.

On a lighter note, it was interesting to learn the history of Snickers, er, Marathon. 🙂

I do love the snack talk. I find it adorable. I will also agree that Hershey’s chocolate is generally terrible, however, Hershey Kisses somehow taste better, particularly the dark chocolate ones.

The name (and shape) comes from the fact that the molten little chocolate dispensing orifice “kisses” the conveyor belt as it moves past, leaving behind the little lumps. However, now I will only see the machinery in my mind as some sort of extendible anus taking little shits on the passing belt. Thanks, team!

The extreme repetition of “women with breast cancer” and “men with prostate cancer” was a little annoying, considering that absolutely anyone can get breast cancer, and not everyone with a prostate is a man. “Breast cancer patients” and “Prostate cancer patients” is how I woulda phrased it.

On a lighter note, it was interesting to learn the history of Snickers, er, Marathon.

I probably should have mentioned on the show – I phrased it that way specifically because those are the statistics I was using. In order to keep it simple the data on mortality I used for this piece was women with breast cancer versus men with prostate cancer. I would usually phrase it as breast cancer patients but in this case I was trying to be accurate in stating which data I was using.

Of course men can get breast cancer but the rates of disease, disease progression and mortality vary more in men because of the reduced hormone component. Breast cancer in women is particularly influenced by female hormones so the disease progresses slightly differently in women who have female hormones.

I also believe it is important to talk more about gender specific cancers or cancers that tend to predominantly affect one gender and how that effects trans-people. It had crossed my mind during this piece but again, I wanted to stick with the data I had available to me and to keep it as uncomplicated as possible. In reality there are lots and lots of complicating factors that we need to consider when it comes to cancer.

Julia :
The extreme repetition of “women with breast cancer” and “men with prostate cancer” was a little annoying, considering that absolutely anyone can get breast cancer, and not everyone with a prostate is a man. “Breast cancer patients” and “Prostate cancer patients” is how I woulda phrased it.

In addition to what Alice wrote in reply if you look at the data referenced in the show notes you will see that the words “female” and “male” were used in the charts. This suggests they looked at mortalities specifically by gender.